
Avia Collinder,
Jamaica Gleaner
Published: Sunday | May 27, 2012
The end of oil?
Edward Seaga, Contributor
In 2007, at the 10th anniversary of the Office of Utility Regulations (OUR), I gave the keynote address in which I made a valuable point which I will now repeat:
“Journals, studies, reports and eminent authorities speak, not of if, but when, reserves of oil will reach the point of diminishing production. The wider the briefing on the reserves of petroleum, the more the future becomes worrying. The future, it is truly said, ‘has a mind of its own’.
The resulting forecasts vary widely, but only a few see the peak production for oil as coming after 2020. One of the forecasts which is more optimistic is the authoritative International Energy Agency (IEA) which collects data from all oil-producing countries. The IEA predicts that the production peak will arrive between 2013 and 2037. Thereafter, production will decline by about three per cent per annum.
World Energy Outlook, the prestigious annual report of the IEA, believes that world oil reserves will exceed production to around 2030, if new reserves are ‘proved up’ in order to avoid a peak before that reference time. But what is worrying about ‘proving’ these new reserves is the projected cumulative investment needs of US$17 trillion to 2030 to boost production globally. This will be a huge challenge that may not be met.”
Conventional alternatives to oil do exist and are readily available in the world market: liquefied natural gas (LNG) and coal. Both are attractive alternatives because they are a fraction of the price of oil. LNG, as a substitute, must be approached with the recognition that it is a petroleum product, and could very well track the rising price of oil over the depleting years, leaving investors with very costly infrastructure facing the same conundrum of very costly fuel.
Coal is far more likely to sustain its comparatively low pricing because of its predominance as a fuel of critical need to American industry where coal is in plentiful supply. But the drawback is the serious pollution threat to the environment caused by burning coal.
Rapidly diminishing supply
Looking at the future of this choice which has been a riddle for more than a decade, the decision becomes more urgent and sharpened with rapidly diminishing supply, raising the spectre supply of exorbitant and unaffordable pricing. This would be a threat to the viability of economies, with the possible outcome of dire economic adjustments which could precipitate another global financial meltdown.
We must be seized by the recognition that civilisation, as we know it, would die if electricity supply should cease. When the generation of power abruptly failed in Manhattan in 1965, it plunged the city into total darkness. With darkness everywhere, so was looting and shooting. This catastrophe made man aware just how much his world depended on electrical power to provide light, run factories, hospitals and offices, provide telecommunication, television and radio services, pump water and fuel, operate elevators and air conditioners, and ensure the use of the labour-saving electrical conveniences of modern life. More than all, transport would cease from lack of oil, the ubiquitous fuel in one form or another.
The dependence on electrical power virtually across the globe is a signal recognition of the power of oil. Whether importing country or exporting producer, the ‘black gold’ is a critical determinant of growth of the economy and the lifestyle of the society.
Imported oil also represents a substantial cost. Measured as a ratio of GDP, oil imports have a significant impact, more so on trade. In the case of Jamaica, in 2010, the value of imported oil was equivalent to a staggering 121.1 per cent of domestic exports at present costs. The comparison can be drawn that the Jamaican economy is hostage to oil:
These figures are sharpened by further recent dramatic increases in costs in recent years. The spectre of possibly still-higher costs yet to come raises other deep concerns about threats to the viability of economies and the outcome of consequential economic adjustments which could precipitate another global financial crisis.
Such prospects are not to be dismissed. They are hinged on the rate of depletion of oil reserves which is now raising questions as to when the peak of production will occur, signalling the downward slope to the end of oil and prohibitive increase in prices well beyond the current US$100 range.
On the future of this single commodity so much of the world’s economy and lifestyle will depend over the next 30 years, we are forced now to look beyond today to create our own foresight of tomorrow. But this has its own uncertainties. As Mark Twain said of prophesies, “It is very difficult especially with respect to the future.”
Blurred vision
Our vision of the future is still blurred. But from the chaos, a pattern of new technologies are emerging with consequences so far-reaching as to begin to shape, once again, a new-world approach to energy.
New sources of energy, once barred as alternatives to conventional sources, for reasons of science, technology and finance, are now being dramatically unleashed in the same way that the splitting of the atom released new potentials once barred by scientific, technological and financial constraints.
In the days of cheap oil, no true vision existed of energising the deep-rural areas where hundreds of millions of the world’s population lived and whose only hope to see light, to refrigerate, to heat, to cook, to telecommunicate and to mechanise electrically, was to await the planting of poles and the stringing of endless miles of wire at costs far beyond calculation.
The resource base was then cheap, but infrastructure was crippling in cost. In today’s energy perspectives, we have reversed the problem of yesterday: the infrastructure is cheap, but the resource base is crippling in cost.
Science and technology, for many years, has been researching the commercialisation of inexhaustible energy sources, of which solar is a prime prospect. Oil interests, too, have not been dormant in their investigation of these new sources.
The research required, and the technological breakthrough necessary, must continue until it can create in any household its own generating plant, using inexhaustible solar energy available to all. No priority exists for those whose lives are sheltered by the flick of a switch to provide light, water, air, heat and entertainment by sound or on the screen, for all of which a monthly billing can be paid. Only those for whom these necessities are becoming a diminishing reality can understand the need to control the damage of dramatically mounting costs.
It must be within man’s genius that he who has explored the cosmos, walked the moon and sent probes to the limits of our solar system should also have the capacity to place within a neighbourhood home the technology to cook food, heat water, provide cool air, refrigerate perishables, light the darkness and provide entertainment, using our source of atomic energy, the sun.
This cannot be a matter of if; it must be when. Robots are walking on Mars, a planet light years away in distance, digging samples of rocks and taking spectacular pictures to impress on us the genius of man. But which is priority, the genius who can mobilise the robot on Mars, or the one who can suffice the needs of neighbourhood homes?
I have focused on the power of the sun as a principal alternative resource not because other renewable resources do not exist, but because wind, water, wood and waste are all restricted to particular local or regional locations for purposes of generating electrical power needs. But the power of the sun is ubiquitous; it is available everywhere and is an inexhaustible resource that can be within the reach of all mankind.
Can solar power be commercialised at competitive cost? Portugal has announced the construction of the world’s largest solar-energy power plant on a 618-acre site by 2010, to produce 62 megawatts, at a cost of US$307 million. It will create 240 permanent jobs. The cost of roughly US$5 million per megawatt compares with conventional oil-fuelled plants, which require US$1 million-US$2 million per megawatt for greenfield construction. But the operating costs tell a different story: solar costs 2 cents per kilowatt-hour to produce energy, while conventional oil-based generating systems cost three times as much, 5.9 cents.
Sweden is now developing a solar-powered plane to fly around the world. Solar power, it is estimated, is capable of supplying up to 10 times Jamaica’s needs.
Our vision must be to create a settled environment of stable supply for the most vital utility in the life of civilised man, electricity, and to offer to those who have not yet enjoyed the comfort of an energy-charged society the chance to experience new lifestyles with better prospects for the future.
Historically, for a great many centuries, oil has been the base on which civilisation has progressed immeasurably, and at a dazzling rate of development over more recent times. The end of that era, it is now recognised, is forthcoming. It is time now to unveil a new era and unleash new power with no less prospect than the world of new technology created by the splitting of the atom. The power of the sun and of natural elements, which are our inexhaustible atomic resources, is that new era:
Surely no more depressing subject exists than one which envisages the prolonged economic distress of the developing world, as a consequence of inaction;
Surely no more economic case exists than to ensure the transformation of one energy base to another, more affordable, more available, and more suitable;
Surely no more enticing case exists than one which ties the interests of private and public sector in official programmes to advance the development of mankind.
The peculiar coincidence of circumstances today, driven by mounting needs to abandon the old and marry the new with urgency before missed deadlines overwhelm us, may not coexist again.
If we fail, the real tragedy will be that we failed to put crisis into perspective; to recognise it as nothing more than a challenge; to exercise that vision that creates opportunity from adversity; and to measure up to the urgent call of our time by creating a future that is not distant but just around the corner.
Edward Seaga is a former prime minister. He is now chancellor of the University of Technology and a distinguished fellow at the UWI. Email feedback to
The Office of Utilities Regulation (OUR) and the Jamaica Public Service Company (JPS) came out swinging over the past two weeks in rebuttals to an article I wrote that was published in the April 22, 2012 issue of
Jamaica continues to combat its energy challenges by drilling for gas and oil.
A shift toward nuclear power is also a possibility.
That
PUBLICLY listed companies reported mixed performance during the first three months of 2012.
The overwhelming majority to have posted results so far managed to get better revenues than in the first three months in 2011.
![]() Shelly Tomblin, the new head of electricity utility JPS, had to report disappointing results less than two months into her new job. |
But almost half of the 28 companies examined by the
JAMAICA should pursue the investment opportunities presented by renewable energy rather than focus on fossil fuels like LNG, says a global think tank.
“There is great potential for local economies in investing in renewable energy,” said Mark Konold, head of the Washington-based Worldwatch Institute, which is identifying opportunities for low-carbon, energy developments in the Caribbean.
![]() Caribbean Project Manager for the Worldwatch Institute Mark Konold says Jamaica should invest in its untapped energy potential. |
Worldwide figures for investment in renewables has shot up steadilly, said the organisation. Countries around the globe put over US$200 billion ($17.4 trillion) into non-carbon-based energy projects last year, as compared to the US$40 billion invested in oil, coal and gas.
Developing nations have led the pack in financing these projects, underscoring the growing recognition of how the cost of traditional energy sources eat into a country’s GDP, said Konold.
“Acting rapidly and ambitiously will not only serve social needs, it is also an economically superior approach to ‘we’ll wait and see’,” he said. Being more aggressive up front, taking more action immediately, “gets more results than being cautious”.
The government’s target for increasing the use of renewable energy to 30 per cent by 2030 is a ‘bold’ move, said Konold, as long-term vision is necessary to foster growth in the industry.
“If I’m an investor, I know how long this project will be and that lets me know how well it will do for me economically,” he said. “That kind of certainty is important.”
Konold is head of the Worldwatch Institute’s assessment of the energy sectors in Jamaica, Haiti and the Dominican Republic, which is aimed at helping the countries reduce dependence on fossil fuel imports. His group will present a low-carbon energy roadmap for Jamaica to the ministry of energy, which will focus on the underuse of natural resources such as solar and wind power.
The market alone cannot lead the process, Konold said, underlining how important it is that the Government be streamlined.
“Government has to play a very strong role,” he said. “For example, Germany doesn’t have as many natural resources as Jamaica, but renewable energy has succeeded there because of strong leadership in terms of policies.”
The group will be back in Jamaica before the end of the year to present their findings to the ministry. The project

The government has signed a deal with Canadian oil and gas exploration company, Fagres, to begin the process of drilling for oil in Jamaica come next year.
At least one expert has serious concerns about the Jamaica Public Service Company Ltd’s (JPS) plans to build the country’s first liquefied natural gas (LNG)-fired plant at a cost of J$52 billion in St Catherine. The 360-megawatt plant is touted to reduce the country’s electricity bill by 30 per cent.
Denzil Williams, head of the Department of Management Studies at the University of the West Indies, Mona campus, said he was not convinced this was the right move because if it backfires, it could cost Jamaica dearly.
Serious issues to consider
“If we get LNG going and if we build this plant, then we can see some savings in our electricity bill but, when you go into the details of it, you recognise that it is not just about building the plant, but there are some more serious issues we have to consider,” he noted.
Speaking during a public forum on ‘The Budget, The Debt, The Future’ hosted by Jamaicans United for Sustainable Development at the Department of Management Studies at the University of the West Indies last Thursday, Williams said there were some critical questions that needed to be considered.
“What if LNG does not come to Jamaica? What if there is a disruption in the supply of LNG? What is the backup fuel if LNG fails?” he asked.
He said at this stage, there was no clear indication if these things were considered by the relevant authorities and if an effective backup plan was in place.
“If we do not secure that source of LNG and get it over on this part of the shores and they have to use that combine cycle gas turbine plant to power electricity later on, we will be in a more dangerous position than before. Because we will be using a much more expensive backup fuel, as the combine cycle gas turbines can only use automotive diesel oil,” said Williams.
He said the Office of Utilities Regulation should publicly address these concerns.
http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20120521/lead/lead4.html


If the Jamaican government wants to break the monopoly on electricity distribution, the best way to do it is to buy out the majority owners of Jamaica Public Service Company Limited (JPS), the utility’s new CEO said Tuesday.
Concurrently, the power utility announced preliminary plans to build a US$475-million 100-megawatt petcoke fuel plant as the second phase of its liquefied natural gas (LNG) project. These projects fall under its five-year US$1.5-billion capital expenditure programme.
Liberalisation without a buy-out would send negative signals to foreign investors, JPS CEO Kelly Tomblin said in a speech to a Jamaica Chamber of Commerce (JCC) meeting in New Kingston.
JPS is owned 40 per cent by Marubeni Corporation, 40 per cent by Korea East-West Power and 19.9 per cent by the Government of Jamaica. The other 0.1 per cent is held by individuals.
“Basically, the government can buy it back from us and then they can liberalise it, and we are certainly open to that. We do not want to stand in the way,” Tomblin said.
JPS’s current exclusive licence has another 16-year run to 2027.
Tomblin’s comments are in response to energy minister Phillip Paulwell’s stated policy goal of liberalising the distribution of power to customers. Paulwell has not said how he plans to execute the strategy.
Currently, some 30 per cent of Jamaica’s 820-megawatt capacity comes from independent power producers which compete to set up generation units to sell power to JPS. They, however, cannot sell power directly to customers and Tomblin advised Government to avoid breaching the JPS contract.
“I do think it would signal a lack of contract certainty and a lack of regulatory certainty,” she told the JCC. “And as the minister, I wouldn’t want to signal that to the international community.”
Higher electricity bills
The cash-strapped Government has little capacity to buy out Marubeni and East-West Power’s stake in JPS.
The utility is one of the largest companies in Jamaica, with total assets valuing US$1.05 billion (J$91 billion). JPS had a net worth of US$371 million (J$32 billion) as at December 2011.
Government wants to liberalise the sector to reduce the cost of electricity to consumers and businesses, but Tomblin argued that it would lead, instead, to higher power bills.
“It is so counter to what I have experienced in the US markets. We used to be small utilities broken down, and we found no economies of scale with workers, with systems or with technology. Then we saw those smaller distribution companies getting larger economies of scale by coming together and getting bigger and bigger,” she said.
Joint undertaking
It was not immediately clear whether the petcoke plant is a redraft of a project announced four years ago as a joint undertaking of JPS and state-owned oil refinery Petrojam Limited. That project was billed as a US$300-million investment to be finalised in 2012, but it never got off the ground.
The new US$475-million petcoke plant will be pursued after JPS finalises the US$614-million LNG plant.
“We believe it makes good sense in the second phase of the project,” Tomblin said.
The company will also spend US$143 million on upgrading its transmission and distribution lines; US$89 million to reduce system losses, including power theft; and US$73 million on renewables.
http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20120516/business/business1.html


Threatens sale of utility to new investors
Energy minister Phillip Paulwell says that Govern-ment can, as a last option, sell Jamaica Public Service Company (JPS) to new investors rather than allow the utility to maintain its “monopolistic arrogance”.
Paulwell did not say how Jamaica would force the sale of the power company, which would likely require its takeover if its owners are hostile to the plan, given the Government’s minority 19.9 per cent holdings.
“There are serious players coming to us and any implied threat can be responded to,” Paulwell said midweek.
Its the latest tit-for-tat surrounding the push to end JPS’ monopoly on power distribution, and follows comment by JPS CEO Kelly Tomblin Tuesday that Jamaica would likely have to buy out the majority owners of the utility if it wanted to pursue liberalisation.
JPS’ current exclusive licence has another 16-year run to 2027.
“I don’t believe that Government has to buy it back,” he said, in response to Tomblin’s assertion.
“People are salivating to take part in the energy sector. The Government won’t go there, but players are salivating to get into the market”.
JPS is owned 40 per cent by Marubeni Corporation, 40 per cent by Korea East-West Power and 19.9 per cent by the Government of Jamaica. The other 0.1 per cent is held by individuals.
The cash-strapped Government has little capacity to buy out Marubeni and East-West Power’s stake in JPS. The utility is one of the largest companies in Jamaica, with total assets valuing US$1.05 billion (J$91 billion), and a net worth of US$371 million (J$32 billion) as at December 2011.
Private negotiations
Paulwell told the